[00:00:04]
[I. Call to Order]
I WOULD LIKE TO CALL IT THE ORDER OF THIS REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE TOWN OF FRONT ROYAL.[II. Roll Call – Determination of Quorum]
MS. POTTER, COULD YOU, UM, CALL THE ROLL COMMISSIONER MERCHANT HERE? COMMISSIONER GORDON HERE BASED IN, OR MARSH NER HERE, HERE.WELL, WE ONLY HAVE FOUR COMMISSIONERS, SO WE HAVE A HUNDRED PERCENT ATTENDANCE TODAY.
[III. Approval of Minutes]
THE NEXT ITEM IS APPROVAL OF MINUTES OF THE NOVEMBER 18, 2020 COMMISSION, REGULAR MEETING MINUTES.IF ANYONE HAS QUESTIONS, ARE I MOVED TO APPROVE? THAT WOULD BE AN ORDER.
IT'S BEEN MOVED, UH, TO APPROVE THE MINUTES.
UM, LET US DO THAT WITH A SHOW OF HANDS.
UM, UH, SHOW OF HANDS IN FAVOR OF A MINUTES UNANIMOUS.
THE NEXT ITEM IS CITIZEN COMMENTS.
UH, THAT WOULD BE COMMENTS ON ANYTHING OTHER THAN WHAT IS ON THE AGENDA TONIGHT.
SO ANY, ANY PERSON HERE WANTED TO MAKE ANY COMMENTS ON OTHER MATTERS, NOT SEEING ANY
[V. Public Hearings]
WE'LL MOVE TO ITEM FIVE PUBLIC HEARING.I'D LIKE TO OPEN THE HEARING ON REZONING APPLICATION NUMBER F R R E Z O N TWO THREE SEVEN TWO DASH TWO OH TWO.
SUBMITTED BY ERIN HIGH-KEY AND DOUGLAS ITCH CHEWY, UM, DOING BUSINESS AS ROCKLEDGE DEVELOPMENT COMPANY, LLC, REQUESTING AMENDMENT OF THE ZONING MAP OF THE TOWN OF FRONT ROYALS ZONING ORDINANCE TO RECLASSIFY 2.1 ACRE PARCEL OF WARREN COUNTY TAX MAP NUMBER TWO (088) 208-1338 FROM RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT R ONE TWO RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT ARE THREE.
AND IF, UM, IF, UM, MR. WILSON HAS ANY ADDITIONAL COMMENTS ON THAT, WE'D BE PLEASED TO HEAR THAT.
UM, I THINK YOU SUMMARIZED THE, THE APPLICATION.
WELL, THIS IS A REZONING REQUESTED IS TO REZONE 2.1 ACRES OF PROPERTY FROM OUR ONE TO OUR THREE RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT.
ITS PROPERTY IS LOCATED, UH, WITH FRONTAGE ALONG SHANANDOAH AVENUE.
PART OF IT IS, IS NOT PRESENTLY APPROVED AND IT'S AT THE NORTHERN TERMINUS OF, OF JEFFERSON AVENUE.
UM, THIS PROPERTY IS BOUNDED, UM, BY UNDEVELOPED, UM, PORTIONS OF RIGHT OF WAY ALSO OF HILLCREST DRIVE AND TO THE REAR OF IT, YOU FIND A RAILROAD TRACKS AND, AND, AND THE RIVER AS, AS YOU CAN SEE IN THE STAFF REPORT, THERE'S A DIAGRAM.
YOU HAVE A, UM, A VICINITY MAP THAT SHOWS THE SITE.
IT IS AT THE VERY END OF THE TERMINUS OF JEFFERSON AVENUE.
IT IS BOUNDED ON THREE SIDES BY OTHER ONE PROPERTY.
AND THEN ON THE FOURTH TO THE EAST, IT IS BOUNDED BY A, BY A LARGE R THREE PRESIDENTIAL DISTRICT.
UH, THE APPLICANT, UH, HAS STATED THAT IT IS THEIR INTENTION TO DEVELOP THIS PROPERTY WITH SINGLE FAMILY DWELLINGS, UH, AND DUPLEX DWELLINGS.
THAT THOSE ARE THE ONLY TWO, UM, DWELLING TYPES THAT THEY WOULD BE INTERESTED IN, EITHER ALL DUPLEX, ALL SINGLE FAMILY, PERHAPS A MIXTURE OF BOTH.
THERE HAS BEEN A PROFFER THAT HAS BEEN SUBMITTED, UH, THAT ACCOMPANIES THIS APPLICATION AND THE PROPER, WHAT LIMIT THE POTENTIAL USES OF THE PROPERTY.
THE
AND WHAT MAKES IT THE HIGH DENSITY IS THAT IT DOES ALLOW FOR APARTMENT AND TOWNHOMES, UH, AND THAT AFFORDS THE GREATEST, UH, DENSITY.
THE, THE APPLICANT'S PROPER IS TO, TO LIMIT DEVELOPMENT OF STRUCTURES
[00:05:01]
TO EITHER SINGLE FAMILY AND OR DUPLEX USES.AND SO THAT WOULD HAVE A SIGNIFICANT IMPACT ON, ON THE DENSITY.
UH, I HAVE PROVIDED FOR YOUR INFORMATION, UH, BOTH THE STATEMENT OF INTENT OF THE ART DISTRICT AS IT IS PRESENTLY ZONED.
UH, THE R THE R ONE IS THE, UH, LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT.
AND AS I MENTIONED, THE R THREE IS THE TOWNS OF MEDIUM TO HIDE HIGH DENSITY.
NOW, THE R TWO DISTRICT IS A MEDIUM DENSITY.
SO YOU MAY WANT TO ASK YOURSELF IF THAT'S, WHAT THEY'RE LOOKING TO DO IS PLAQUE SOMETHING, THAT'D BE A MEDIUM DENSITY, UH, WHY NOT REQUEST AN R TWO RECLASSIFICATION? UM, PART OF THAT IS THAT THERE IS NO CONNECTING PROPERTY TO THIS TWO ACRES, WHICH IS A, ROUGHLY EQUALLY SMALL PARCEL OF LAND IT'S BOUNDED AND TOTALLY SURROUNDED BY EITHER R ONE OR R THREE.
SO THIS REZONING, UH, TO R THREE, WITH THE PROFFER HAS THE EFFECT OF MAKING THIS A MEDIUM DENSITY TYPE RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT AS THE R TWO WOULD DO, BUT IT DOES, UH, WITH A BETTER ZONING SCHEME OR A BETTER ZONING PATTERN THAN JUST HAVING A SINGLE TWO ACRE, OUR TWO DISTRICTS SITTING THERE BY ITSELF.
SO WITH THAT SAID, UM, STAFF DOES RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THE REZONING REQUEST, AND THAT, THAT RECOMMENDATION IS CONDITIONED UPON THE SEC, THE ACCEPTANCE OF THE PROFFER.
AND I HAVE SPOKEN WITH THE APPLICANT AND, UH, TOLD THEM THAT, YOU KNOW, THE, UH, THE, THE PROPER WOULD NEED TO BE MORE CLEARLY WORDED.
SO IT WOULD BE MORE PLAINLY KNOWN AND MORE EASILY ENFORCEABLE THAT ONLY SINGLE FAMILY OR DUPLEX USES, UH, WOULD BE ALLOWED IN TERMS OF THE FUTURE DEVELOPMENT OF, OF THAT TWO ACRE PARCEL.
AND I'D BE GLAD TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS THAT THE COMMISSION MAY HAVE.
AND THE APPLICANT IS WITH US HERE THIS EVENING.
WOULD YOU CARE TO MAKE ANY ADDITIONAL COMMENTS? UH, MR. WILSON WAS VERY WELL SPOKEN TO I, YOU HAVE QUESTIONS.
ANY QUESTIONS FROM THE COMMISSIONERS I'VE ALREADY OPENED IT? CHAIRMAN OF ONE, ONE LAST THING THAT OUR PLAN IS TO BUILD A WORKFORCE NOW.
COULD YOU RECORD YET? THE TECHNICIAN ASKED IF HE COULD COME TO THE MICROPHONE, PLEASE.
THANK YOU AGAIN FOR, FOR ENTERTAINING OUR REQUEST.
I APPRECIATE THE CHAIRMAN AND COMMISSIONERS OF OUR PLAN IS TO BUILD WORKFORCE HOUSING.
SO I WANTED TO MAKE THAT COMMENT AS WELL.
I WILL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AND SEE IF WE HAVE ANY ONE THAT COMMISSIONER OR WOULD MAKE A MOTION, UH, PERTAIN TO THIS.
THE, UH, DO WE KNOW HOW MANY DUPLEXES THEY WERE PLANNING ON PUTTING IN THERE? UH, IS THERE, HAS THERE BEEN A CONCEPT PLAN OR A DEVELOPMENT PLAN SUBMITTED WITH IT? NO, NO, THERE, THERE, THERE IS NOT A PLAN THAT WAS PART OF THE PROFFER THAT THAT WOULD SET, YOU KNOW, HOW MANY PARCELS AND HOW MANY DUPLEXES, BUT IT, BUT IT WAS DISCUSSED THAT, YOU KNOW, THEY WOULD MOST LIKELY BE USING THE, THE, UH, THE 8,000 SQUARE SQUARE FOOT LOT SIZE, UH, AND THEN DEPENDING ON HOW THEY ARRANGE IT, WHETHER THEY'RE GOING TO, HOW THEY ARRANGE THOSE LOTS, IF THEY'RE GOING TO PUT IT IN A SMALL CUL-DE-SAC, YOU KNOW, THERE'S A COUPLE OF DIFFERENT OPTIONS ON HOW TO DEVELOP THAT, BUT NO, THERE'S NOT, WE DISCUSSED DIFFERENT CONCEPTS, BUT THERE'S NOT A CONCEPT PLAN, UH, THAT THEY HAVE DECIDED ON AT THIS TIME YET.
AND TH THE PROFFERS HAVE NOT YET BEEN APPROVED BY LEGAL, UH, SU UH, THE, THE, THE PROFFERS.
UM, I CAN LET THE, UH, COUNCIL, UH, LOOK TO THAT, BUT, BUT THE PROPER IS, IS FAIRLY SIMPLE IN NATURE.
IT'S, IT'S RESTRICTING THE USE OF THE PROPERTY TO
[00:10:01]
ONLY RAISE A SINGLE FAMILY AND DUPLEX STRUCTURE DEVELOPMENT.AND, AND THEY'VE SUBMITTED THAT IN WRITING TO YOU.
YES, THEY, THEY DID SUBMIT THAT IN WRITING.
AND I'VE HAD A DISCUSSION WITH THE APPLICANT THAT I, I UNDERSTAND THE INTENT WE'RE IN AGREEMENT, UH, OF THAT INTENT, BUT I WOULD LIKE TO SEE IT, UH, WITH SOME MORE PLAIN LANGUAGE SO THAT, UM, IT IS VERY CLEAR THAT THOSE WILL BE THE ONLY TWO TYPES OF STRUCTURES THAT WILL BE ALLOWED THAT NAMELY TO SAY THAT, TO MAKE IT VERY PLAIN, THAT TOWNHOME DEVELOPMENT AND APARTMENT DEVELOPMENT WOULD NOT BE ALLOWED.
SO, SO HE HASN'T SUBMITTED THAT FINAL PROPER FORMAT THEN AS OF THIS POINT, NOT, NOT, NOT IN THE REVISED FORM.
UH, ONE OTHER QUESTION, ENVIRONMENTAL SITE ASSESSMENT PHASE ONE AND TWO, OBVIOUSLY THIS IS A SMALL SITE.
AND THAT CAN BE WAIVED IN WRITING BY THE DIRECTOR.
I DID TELL HIM THAT, UH, THE, THE APPLICANTS THAT, BECAUSE IT WAS A, A SMALL SITE UNDEVELOPED THAT I WOULD NOT REQUIRE A PHASE ONE AND PHASE TWO TO BE SUBMITTED WITH THIS, UH, AND TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS, SAME THE SAME.
UM, UH, THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN CURRENTLY SHOWS THAT AS A CONSERVATION.
WELL, WE HAVE TO AMEND THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN FOR THIS REZONING.
I DON'T THINK THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN WOULD NEED TO BE AMENDED TO COINCIDE WITH THE REZONING, BUT, BUT I MEAN, BUT YOU DO BRING UP AN INTERESTING POINT, A, YOU KNOW, A SIGNIFICANT AREA THERE WAS DESIGNATED FOR CONSERVATION AND FOR REASONS UNKNOWN TO ME, IT WAS, IT WAS NOT ZONED CONSERVATION.
IT WAS ALL ACTUALLY ZONE DIFFERENT LEVELS OF RESIDENTIAL.
SO IT'S, UM, IT'S, IT'S VERY MUCH IN KEEPING WITH THE ZONING MAP AND THE ZONING PATTERN THAT WAS ESTABLISHED UNDER THE ZONING ORDINANCE, BUT THE ZONING ORDINANCE ITSELF, UH, AND FOR THAT AREA DID NOT RECOGNIZE AN ENTIRETY, THE RECOMMENDATIONS FROM THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN.
SO EVEN THOUGH THIS IS IN CONFLICT WITH THE COMP PLAN, IT DOESN'T REQUIRE ANY COMP PLAN AMENDMENT.
UM, I, I LOOK AT IT THAT, UM, THE, THE REQUIREMENT IS, IS TO FIND IT AND SUBSTANTIAL ACCORDANCE AND TAKING INTO ACCOUNT.
UH, SOME OF THE GOALS, THE OBJECTIVES THAT I STATED IN THE STAFF REPORT ABOUT HOUSING, I BELIEVE THAT IT IS CONSISTENT WITH THAT.
AND ALSO LOOKING AT HOW THE, AT LEAST THE ZONING ORDINANCE WAS CONSISTENT AND WHAT IT DID AND HOW IT ZONED THAT AREA.
IT WAS NOT IMPERFECT ACCORDANCE WITH THE FUTURE LAND USE MAP, BUT WITH OTHER NARRATIVE CONCERNING HOUSING, UH, YOU KNOW, I THINK IN THE BALANCE OF THINGS THAT, THAT IT ISN'T IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE COMP PLAN.
UH, MR. CHAIRMAN, UM, WE HAD LOOKED AT THIS AS CONSERVATION WHEN WE WERE LOOKING AT THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN UPDATES OVER THE TIME.
UH, ONE OF THE REASONS FOR THAT WAS IT'S A S IT'S A VERY STEEP SLOPE SITE, WHICH I'M SURE YOU'VE LOOKED AT THAT.
SO A STEEP SLOPE ANALYSIS AT SOME TYPE WILL HAVE TO BE DONE, UH, PRIOR TO DEVELOPMENT AND THE LACK OF UTILITIES, UH, SANITARY SEWER IS GOING TO BE A DIFFICULT, I DON'T KNOW, HAD THE APPLICANT DISCUSSED HOW THEY WERE GOING TO SOLVE THE SANITARY SEWER, UH, UH, UH, SITUATION ON THIS PARTICULAR SITE.
UH, WE, WE HAD DISCUSSIONS ABOUT UTILITIES.
UH, WE HAD, UH, QUITE A BIT OF DISCUSSION ABOUT ROADWAY IMPROVEMENTS ALSO, THAT WOULD BE, THAT WOULD BE NEEDED.
SO, YES, THE APPLICANT IS AWARE THAT THERE, THAT THERE'S, UH, INFRASTRUCTURE AND UTILITY, UH, IMPROVEMENTS THAT WILL HAVE TO BE MADE, UH, IN ORDER TO, IF THIS IS SUCCESSFUL AND REZONING, AND THEY MOVE FOR FURTHER WITH DEVELOPMENT PLANS, THEY UNDERSTAND THAT THERE ARE SOME SIGNIFICANT UTILITY AND ROADWAY, UH, UH, IMPROVEMENTS.
SO THE SENATE REALLY WOULD NOT BE AN ITEM TO REALLY LOOK AT, AND THE, IN THIS PARTICULAR PHASE, IS THAT WHAT YOU'RE SAYING? I DON'T THINK IT'S AT THIS PARTICULAR PHASE, BUT IF THEY MOVED INTO A DEVELOPMENT PHASE, THEN
[00:15:01]
YES, IT WOULD.I MEAN, RIGHT, RIGHT NOW IT, YOU KNOW, SOMEONE COULD TRY TO DEVELOP IT RESIDENTIALLY UNDER THE, UNDER THE R ONE.
UH, SO THAT, THAT SITUATION IS ALREADY THERE.
THE, THE EFFECT OF THIS ZONING CHANGE WOULD ONLY BE, YOU COULD STILL DO OUR ONE, THE ONLY DIFFERENCE WOULD BE YOU COULD ALSO DO A DUPLEX UNIT.
SO THE, IN TERMS OF THE TYPE OF CONSTRUCTION AND MAGNITUDE OF IT, IT WOULD NOT BE IN MY OPINION, THAT DRAMATIC A CHANGE FROM WHAT'S ALREADY THERE WITH THE
I'D JUST LIKE TO POINT OUT TO THE APPLICANT THAT THERE'S PROBABLY A REASON THIS LAND HAS BEEN VACANT FOR THE LAST 80 YEARS, AND THAT IS THAT UTILITIES, ESPECIALLY SANITARY, SEWER WILL BE A PROBLEM, UM, DEVELOPING THAT ECONOMICALLY.
SO JUST WANT TO POINT THAT OUT TO HIM.
THANK YOU, MR. CHAIR, ANY OTHER COMMENTS OR QUESTIONS WE RAN INTO FOR A MOTION? SOMEBODY LIKE TO MAKE A MOTION AND I, AND I WOULD JUST, UM, JUST, JUST TO REMIND THE, THE COMMISSION, UH, ANY SUCH MOTION ON THIS, SINCE IT DOES THIS APPLICATION IS ACCOMPANIED BY PROPER SHOULD INCLUDE WHETHER OR NOT, UH, EITHER OR ANY OF THE PROFFERS, UH, SHOULD BE ACCEPTED.
UH, MR. CHAIRMAN, I MOVE THAT THE PLANNING COMMISSION FORWARD A RECOMMENDATION OF APPROVAL TO RESIGN THE 2.1 ACRE PARCEL IDENTIFIED IN THE APPLICATION FROM OUR ONE DISTRICT TO OUR THREE DISTRICT CONDITIONED UPON THE ACCEPTANCE OF THE SUBMITTED PROFFER TO BE APPROPRIATELY REWORDED, TO LIMIT ANY FURTHER RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT OF THE PROPERTY TO ONLY SINGLE FAMILY DWELLINGS AND OR DUPLEX STRUCTURES.
ANY, IS THERE A SECOND TO THAT? YEAH, I'LL SECOND IT, OKAY.
SO I'VE BEEN MOVED AND SECONDED.
UM, THERE ARE NO OTHER COMMENTS THEN, UH, UH, MS. POTTER COULD DO A POLL, THE COMMISSION COMMISSIONER GORDON.
THAT'S UM, THAT IS DONE AND I WILL CLOSE THE OPPONENT HEARING THE,
[VI. Other Applications]
UH, THE NEXT ITEM IS AN, UH, AN APPLICATION, A MAJOR SITE PLAN APPLICATION NUMBER F R S I T E 2057 DASH 2020 SUBMITTED BY REALTY LINK FOR THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT OF THE RETAIL AUTO PARTS STORE ON A 0.49 ACRE SITE ZONE C ONE DISTRICT LOCATED AT FOUR 40 SOUTH STREET TAX MAP, PARCEL NUMBER TWO OH A 18 DASH FIVE.AND THERE ARE ATTACHMENTS FOR THEM FOR THE COMMISSIONERS.
MR. WILSON, DO YOU HAVE, UH, YES.
UH, ONCE AGAIN, I THINK YOUR SUMMARY WAS, WAS APPARENTLY COMPLETE.
UH, WE, WE, WE DO HAVE A MAJOR SITE PLAN, WHICH DOES REQUIRE REVIEW AND ACTION BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION.
UH, THIS WILL BE FOR THE DEMOLITION OF A, OF A VACANT OR PREVIOUS, UH, BANK BUILDING AT FOUR 40 SOUTH STREET, UH, WITH THE PROPOSED USE BEING A, A RETAIL ESTABLISHMENT BEING IN THE FORM OF AN AUTO PART STORE.
AND THIS PROPERTY IS ZONED C1 AND THE RETAIL STORE IS A USE THAT IS PERMITTED BY RIGHT IN THAT C1 ZONING DISTRICT.
UH, WE'VE WORKED QUITE A BIT, UH, THE TOWN ENGINEERING FIRM WITH THE APPLICANT'S ENGINEER TO WHAT WE FEEL IS A, UH, DEEMED TO BE A COMPLETE SITE PLAN.
UM, LET ME FEEL FAIRLY CONFIDENT THAT THE, ALL THE ISSUES OF, OF THE ORDINANCE, UM, HAVE BEEN SATISFACTORILY ADDRESSED IN, IN THE DEVELOPMENT OF THIS SITE.
THERE ARE, UM, JUST SOME VERY FEW MINOR THINGS IN THE LAST SUBMISSION, AND THIS IS JUST A TYPICAL DETAIL.
UM, UH, ONE OF THE QUESTIONS TODAY RECEIVED BY, UM, COMMISSIONER GORDON, UH, CONCERNING THE, UH, THE WASTE RECEPTACLE AND WHETHER OR NOT THAT THAT SHOULD BE GATED, ACTUALLY THE, THE, UH, THE STRUCTURAL DETAIL FOR THE WALL, UH,
[00:20:01]
AND, AND THAT AREA, UH, WAS, WAS NOT THERE, BUT THAT'S A VERY SIMPLE MATTER, UH, TO HAVE THAT THAT PLACED, UH, ON, ON THE SITE PLAN, STAFF HAS REVIEWED IT.UH, WE DO FIND THAT THIS USE, UH, IS A PERMITTED USE IN THIS DISTRICT AND THAT THE PROPOSED SITE PLAN AND DEVELOPMENT DOES MEET THE MINIMUM REQUIREMENTS OF THE, OF THE ORDINANCE.
AND STAFF RECOMMENDS A FAVORABLE ACTION ON THIS SITE PLAN.
I WOULDN'T, UM, I, I NOTED THAT THE, THERE WAS A VERY CAREFUL STUDY OF DRAINAGE, UH, ON THAT, AND THAT'S A CRITICAL OF BEING RIGHT NEXT TO HAPPY CREEK AND THE SOUTH SIDE, I THINK IT WAS APPROPRIATE TO SPEND THAT EFFORT ON THAT AND MAKE SURE THAT THE DRAINAGE WOULD BE APPROPRIATE UNDER, I THINK THEY WERE TALKING ABOUT 10 YEAR RATINGS AND THINGS LIKE THAT.
AND I THOUGHT THE OVERALL, UM, UH, PLANTING AROUND THAT WOULD BE VERY OUTSTANDING IF IT IS DONE AND MAINTAINED.
OTHER QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS, MR. CHAIRMAN, I MOVE THAT THE PLANNING COMMISSION APPROVE APPLICATION F R S I T E TWO THREE FIVE SEVEN DASH TWO ZERO TWO ZERO AS SUBMITTED BY THE APPLICANT FOR THE IDENTIFIED NEW RETAIL AUTO PARTS STORE AT FOUR 40 SOUTH STREET.
IS THERE A SECOND, SECOND IT'S BEEN MOVED AND SECONDED.
ARE THERE DISCUSSION, UH, ISSUES FOR THE COMMISSION? ANYONE HAVE ANYTHING TO ADD IF THIS ONLY BINDING FOR AN AUTO PARTS STORE? I MEAN, LIKE, COULD SOME OF THEIR THINGS THAT THEY CHANGED THEIR PLANS AND PUT SOME OTHER BUILDING, THERE WERE ONLY AN AUTO PARTS STORE AT THIS POINT.
I, I, I COULDN'T QUITE HEAR YOU, IS IT IS THE QUESTION, IS, IS THIS LIMITED TO JUST AUTO PARTS STORE? OR, OR WERE YOU SAYING, DID YOU, WHAT'S THE QUESTION? IS THERE ANY SERVICING OR ANYTHING TAKING PLACE? RIGHT.
WELL, IN CASE THE AUTO PEOPLE SAY, GEE, THEY'RE ALREADY TWO IN TOWN.
MAYBE WE DON'T WANT TO BUILD AFTER ALL.
AND SOMEBODY ELSE WANTS TO DO IT.
WOULD THIS APPLY TO SOME OTHER BUSINESS? UH, IT IS HID, IT IS A ZONING APPROVAL, UH, AND, UH, IT IS A VALID ZONING APPROVAL.
ACTUALLY, YOUR QUESTION'S PROBABLY A VERY GOOD SEGUE TO OUR NEXT ITEM ON, UH, UNDER ALL BUSINESS.
BUT YES, IF THIS WAS APPROVED, UM, YOU KNOW, SHOULD ANOTHER, UH, ENTITY, UM, WANT TO DEVELOP THE PROPERTY IN THE SAME FASHION, IT WOULD BE DEEMED A VALID ZONING APPROVAL OF WRAPPER.
BUT IF, IF IT SAY IT FELL THROUGH AND ONE REASON OR ANOTHER, AND THERE WAS A DESIRE TO DO SOME OTHER TYPE OF STORE, WOULD THAT NEED TO COME BACK TO THE COMMISSION, THEN ABSOLUTELY IT'D BE A DIFFERENT, IT'D BE A DIFFERENT PROPOSAL.
SO THAT WOULD GENERATE THE NEED FOR A WHOLE NEW APPLICATION PROCESS.
ANY OTHER, JUST TO, UP ON THAT.
SO IF WE WERE TO APPROVE THIS, THEY BUILD THE STRUCTURE BUSINESS DECIDES NOT TO MOVE IN THAT STRUCTURE CAN'T BE USED FOR ANY OTHER USE OTHER THAN AN AUTO PART STORE WITHOUT COMING BACK FOR ZONING APPROVAL.
BECAUSE TO ME, IF IT WAS IN, IF IT WAS A BUY RIGHT USE OF THE C1 DISTRICT, ANY OF THOSE USERS COULD USE THIS SITE PLAN.
IF, IF A ANOTHER USE WANTED TO OCCUPY THIS BUILDING, SAY IT WAS BUILT AND BECAME VACANT, HAD A MINIMUM, YES, THERE WOULD HAVE TO BE A ZONING REVIEW AND APPROVAL IF FOR NO OTHER REASON TO, TO ENSURE THAT THE PROPOSED USE IS EITHER, UH, USED PERMITTED BY RIGHT OR BY SPECIAL EXCEPTION PERMIT AND THE C1.
UM, IF PART OF THAT PROPOSAL, UM, ALSO INCLUDED PHYSICAL CHANGES OR DIFFERENT IMPROVEMENTS TO THE SITE, THEN STAFF WOULD HAVE TO TAKE A LOOK AT THE DEGREE OF THOSE CHANGES AND THEN MAKE A DETERMINATION.
WOULD THAT BE, WOULD THOSE PHYSICAL CHANGES BE DEEMED MINOR IN NATURE, A MINOR SITE PLAN REQUIREMENT OR MAJOR IN NATURE, AND IF THEY WERE DETERMINED MAJOR IN NATURE, THEN THEY
[00:25:01]
WOULD COME BACK TO THIS BODY AGAIN FOR REVIEW AND APPROVAL.THE FIVE PLAN APPLICATION IS APPROVED.
[VII. Old Business]
THE NEXT ITEM IS OLD BUSINESS.UM, I BELIEVE YOU, UM, WOULD LIKE TO SUGGEST, UH, SOME OLD, OLD BUSINESS.
CHAIRMAN JONES, THE, UH, THE PLANNING COMMISSION AT A PREVIOUS MEETING HAD MADE NOTE OF A PROVISION AND THE ZONING ORDINANCE, UH, STATING THAT SPECIAL USE PERMITS WERE NOT TRANSFERRABLE TO TWO OTHER PARTIES.
AND THE COMMISSION HAD REQUESTED AN OPINION, UH, FROM THE TOWN ATTORNEY'S OFFICE ON THAT PROVISION.
AND, UH, MR. SONNET HAS, HAS RESEARCHED THAT, AND HE'S HERE THIS EVENING READY TO PROVIDE YOU WITH HIS, UH, RESPONSE AND OPINION ON THAT PROVISION.
UM, I UNDERSTAND THAT AT THE NOVEMBER 18, UH, MEETING, UM, COMMISSIONER AS THOSE COMMISSIONER GORDON, UH, RAISED THIS ISSUE, UH, WITH MR. NAPIER.
SO, UH, THE ISSUE IS, UH, RELATES TO, UM, UH, ZONING ORDINANCE, UH, ONE 75 DASH ONE 36 SPECIAL USE PERMITS.
AND I THINK THE, IN PARTICULAR, THE LANGUAGE IN QUESTION WAS THIS IS THE FOLLOWING SENTENCE.
SPECIAL USE PERMITS ARE NOT TRANSFERRABLE TO ANOTHER PARTY.
AND I THINK, ALTHOUGH PERHAPS NOT ARTFULLY DRAFTED, THE INTENT OF THAT SENTENCE, UH, IS, WAS TO, OR IS TO, UM, THIS SIMPLY STATE A GENERALLY ACCEPTED, UH, UH, UNDERSTANDING OF, OF WHAT ZONING IS SO ZONING AND LAND USE, UM, ZONING HAS TO DO WITH THE USE OF LAND, NOT THE OWNERSHIP OF LAND.
AND, UH, I DON'T TAKE THAT SENTENCE TO MEAN THAT SPECIAL USE PERMITS ARE NOT, DO NOT RUN WITH THE LAND.
UH, IT'S, IT'S GENERALLY ACCEPTED THAT THEY DO RUN WITH THE LAND.
UM, SO I CAN SEE WHERE THIS LANGUAGE IS SOMEWHAT CONFUSING.
UH, BUT AGAIN, I THINK THE INTENT WAS TO, TO STATE THAT IT, IT RUNS WITH THE LAND, NOT WITH THE PERSON.
AND SO A PERSON HAS NO ABILITY TO TRANSFER, RIGHT.
UM, AND I REALLY, UNLESS THERE ARE QUESTIONS I REALLY DON'T HAVE MUCH TO ADD TO THAT.
UM, TH YOU KNOW, DOES IT, SHOULD IT BE AMENDED? UM, I THINK IT COULD BE CLARIFIED, UM, UH, TO SAY SOMETHING ALONG THE LINES OF SPECIAL USE PERMITS, UH, RUN WITH THE LAND, UH, BUT ARE NOT OTHERWISE TRANSFERABLE, PERHAPS SOMETHING LIKE THAT WOULD CLARIFY IT, BUT, UM, BUT, UH, IT'S, IT CERTAINLY DOESN'T, THE INTENT IS CERTAINLY NOT TO, TO BE READ AS A SPECIAL USE PERMITS DO NOT RUN WITH THE LAND.
I APPRECIATE YOU LOOKING INTO IT.
UM, THAT INTERPRETATION MAKES SENSE FROM WHAT, WHAT LOGICALLY MAKES SENSE.
UM, MR. CHAIRMAN, IF I, I GUESS, WHAT IS THE PROCEDURE, IF WE WANTED TO RECOMMEND THAT THIS SECTION OF THE CODE WAS AN ENDED, IS THAT SOMETHING, OR, UM, MR. WILSON, MAYBE A BETTER QUESTION FOR YOU.
IS THAT SOMETHING THAT THIS BODY WOULD ASK TOWN COUNCIL TO CONSIDER? WOULD WE DRAFT THAT YOU, YOU HAVE TWO OPTIONS, YOU CAN EITHER JUST BY MOTION RECOMMEND TO THE, TO THE TOWN COUNCIL THAT YOU BELIEVE THAT THE LANGUAGE IS PROBLEMATIC AND THEY SHOULD EXAMINE IT TO PROVIDE CLARITY AND LEAVE IT AT THAT.
OR YOU ALSO DO HAVE THE ABILITY AS THE, AS THE PLANNING COMMISSION TO INITIATE A TEXT AMENDMENT.
[00:30:01]
UM, THERE IS A PROCESS FOR THAT.UM, IT'S A SPECIFIC MOTION WITH SPECIFIC LANGUAGE, BUT YOU, YOU DO HAVE THE ABILITY TO, TO START THAT PROCESS, OR YOU CAN MERELY, UH, MAKE IT A REPORT TO THE GOVERNING BODY THAT YOU BELIEVE THERE TO BE PERHAPS SOME CONFUSION WITH THAT LANGUAGE THAT, THAT COULD USE SOME CLARIFICATION AND THEN SEE WHAT THEIR, THEIR OPINION ON THE MATTER IS AND HOW THEY WOULD LIKE TO PROCEED.
I WOULD, I WOULD SUGGEST THAT IT MIGHT BE A GOOD, UH, TOPIC OF DISCUSSION FOR OUR NEXT WORK SESSION.
[VIII. New Business]
LET'S SEE.WE ARE, UM, LOOKING AT NEW BUSINESS, UH, THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN UPDATE, UM, AND, UM, I GUESS WE, UH, WE HAVE BEEN IN A SITUATION WHICH WE HAVE DONE.
WE'VE HAD A NUMBER OF WORK SESSIONS ON IT IN THE PAST.
AND, UM, BUT NOTHING RECENTLY, WE WERE PLANNING TO HAVE A WORK SESSION ON THE SUBJECT THAT THE 5TH OF DECEMBER, BUT WE WERE SNOWED OUT FOR THAT ONE.
SO WE DON'T HAVE ANY SPECIFIC PLANS RIGHT NOW.
SO I GUESS THAT WOULD, THE COMMISSION IS OPEN TO A CONSIDERATION OF WHAT, UH, EXPRESSED A DESIRE, UH, TO, UM, TO LOOK AT THE PLAN OR IF YOU HAVE, UH, IF YOU HAVE PLANS ABOUT THE PLAN, WE WOULD BE GLAD TO HEAR WHAT YOU'VE BEEN THINKING ABOUT.
UH, I DID COMMUNICATE AND TALK WITH THE, UH, DIRECTOR OF THE, OF THE REGIONAL COMMISSION, AND I, I THINK THIS BODY HAS DEALT WITH THEM BEFORE.
AND, UH, I AND THE DIRECTOR ACTUALLY CAME TO MUTUAL CONCLUSIONS, UH, CONCERNING, UH, THE CURRENT STATUS OF THE TOWN, UH, COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AS YOU WELL KNOW, UH, IT, IT IS FAIRLY WELL OUTDATED AND BOTH OF US AGREED THAT BECAUSE IT WAS IN SUCH OUTDATE THAT REALLY A UPDATE OR A MAINTENANCE UPDATE WAS NOT, WAS WHAT WAS REALLY NEEDED OR REQUIRED, BUT AN ACTUAL REWRITE OF THE PLAN B BECAUSE, UH, OF, OF HOW LONG IT HAS BEEN SINCE IT RECEIVED A SUBSTANTIAL UPDATE.
UM, AS YOU KNOW, WE THERE'S BEEN THE CONCLUSION OF THE 20, 20 CENSUS, AND HOPEFULLY THAT INFORMATION WILL BE PUBLISHED.
IT'S USUALLY IN THE, THE LATTER PART OF THE SPRING AFTER THE CENSUS IS CONCLUDED, BUT WITH THE WAY THINGS ARE EVERYTHING TODAY, UH, W WITH, WITH COVID AND, AND SO FORTH, HOPEFULLY THERE WON'T BE A DELAY.
UH, BUT WE AGREE THAT THAT, THAT WOULD BE VERY GOOD INFORMATION TO HAVE, UH, TO DO A REWRITE INSTEAD OF, YOU KNOW, BASING, UH, BEGINNING OF REWRITE BASED ON ESTIMATES THAT ARE GOING BACK TO THE 2010 TO A CENSUS TO USE THE ABSOLUTE MOST CURRENT, UH, INFORMATION, UH, LITERALLY HOT OFF THE PRESS, UM, FROM, FROM THE CENSUS BUREAU AND ALSO TALKING ABOUT, UM, THE COVID AND RIGHT NOW, UH, A LOT OF PUBLIC AND EVEN PRIVATE AGENCIES ARE TRYING TO LIMIT THEIR MEETING AND THEIR CONTACT IS THAT A COMPREHENSIVE PLAN IS SOMETHING THAT, UM, IT'S USUALLY ENCOURAGED A CERTAIN AMOUNT OF PUBLIC MEETING, PUBLIC PARTICIPATION, AND HOPEFULLY WE WILL BE WITH THE VACCINES THAT HAVE COME OUT AND SO FORTH.
YOU KNOW, WE'RE TRYING TO BE OPTIMISTIC THAT BY THE TIME THE CENSUS DATA STARTS COMING OUT, MAYBE WE WILL BE IN A BETTER POSITION TO START HAVING SOME, SOME MORE OPEN TYPE MEETINGS TO TRY TO SOLICIT AND GATHER AND INCORPORATE PUBLIC INPUT INTO THE, INTO THE, THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN.
I ALSO INQUIRED WITH THEM IN TERMS OF THEIR ASSISTANCE.
UH, THE, THE REWRITE OF A PLAN IS AN EXTENSIVE PROJECT.
IT'S, IT'S A CONSIDERABLE BODY OF WORK TO PUT SOMETHING LIKE THAT TOGETHER.
UM, WE, WE DO NOT HAVE STAFF, UM, IN TOWN, UH, THAT, THAT, YOU KNOW, CAN DEDICATE THE TIME NEEDED TO DO THAT.
AND THE, THE REGIONAL COMMISSION TOLD ME THAT, YOU KNOW, THAT TO DO A PLAN REWRITE, THAT THEY DID NOT HAVE ENOUGH STAFF TO DO PROVIDE THE ASSISTANCE.
THEY SAID THAT THEY COULD DO PORTIONS OF IT, UH, BUT THEY THEMSELVES,
[00:35:01]
UH, WHAT ALSO, IF WE WANTED TO RELY MORE ON THEM TO HELP WITH A REWRITE, THEY WOULD PROBABLY HAVE TO CONTACT CONTRACT FOR SOME SERVICES TO HELP WITH THAT AS WELL.UM, RIGHT NOW I'M WAITING ON GETTING SOME FIGURES BACK FROM THE REGIONAL COMMISSION ON WHAT THOSE NUMBERS WOULD BE.
I'VE ALSO, UM, CONTACTED A PRIVATE, UH, COMPANY THAT, THAT DOES THIS TYPE OF WORK, UH, THE, THE REWRITE OF COMPREHENSIVE PLANS, UH, SO FORTH.
AND I, AND I'M TRYING TO GET SOME COST ESTIMATES TO TRY TO FIGURE OUT WHAT A REWRITE WOULD COST.
UM, IN TERMS OF TIME OF A REWRITE, YOU'RE PROBABLY LOOKING AT SOMEWHERE PROBABLY ABOUT A 12 TO 18 MONTH PROCESS AND A BIG PART OF THAT, UM, IS GOING TO BE HOW MUCH PUBLIC PARTICIPATION YOU WANT TO TRY TO BRING IN TO THAT PROCESS.
I MEAN, THAT, THAT'S A GOOD THING, BUT, BUT, BUT IT DOES, YOU KNOW, IT DOES ADD TIME TO THE PROCESS.
UH, THE ONLY, THE ONLY PUBLIC PARTICIPATION YOU'RE REQUIRED TO HAVE IS ONE PUBLIC HEARING BEFORE YOU RECOMMEND IT, UH, TO, TO THE COUNCIL.
AND I ABSOLUTELY DO NOT RECOMMEND THAT THAT BE THE LIMIT OF YOUR PUBLIC PARTICIPATION, BUT, UM, THERE'S MANY DIFFERENT WAYS THAT YOU CAN DO THAT.
UM, I'VE WORKED WITH COMMISSIONS WHO THEY THEMSELVES APPOINTED A CITIZENS ADVISORY COMMITTEE THAT WORKED WITH THEM ON OCCASION.
UM, THERE'S ALL SORTS OF SURVEYS THAT WE CAN PUT OUT THERE.
UM, THE MEANS OF TRYING TO BRING THE PUBLIC IN, UM, ARE, ARE, ARE MANY.
AND I THINK IT'S VERY IMPORTANT BECAUSE YOU HAVE TO REMEMBER THIS JUST ISN'T A STATISTICAL EXERCISE OR ILLEGAL EXERCISE.
I, YOU KNOW WHAT, SOMETIMES IT'S EASY TO GET CAUGHT UP THAT, YOU KNOW, WE'RE, WE'RE PLANNING FOR, FOR ROADS AND SEWER LINES AND SO FORTH, BUT AT THE END OF THE DAY, WHAT WE'RE PLANNING FOR PEOPLE, PEOPLE THAT ARE HERE AND PEOPLE THAT HAVEN'T EVEN SHOWN UP HERE YET.
AND SO GETTING THAT PUBLIC PARTICIPATION IN THE PROCESS I THINK IS, IS, IS A VERY IMPORTANT PART OF IT.
I WILL BE HAVING SOME MORE MEETINGS, UH, WITH BOTH THE NEW TOWN MANAGER AND THE FINANCE DIRECTOR, BECAUSE IT'S LOOKING AS IF THIS IS GOING TO REQUIRE SOME FUNDING, YOU KNOW, TO TRY TO GET THIS ACCOMPLISHED, UM, WHETHER WE DO IT IN HOUSING CONTRACT WITH, UH, WITH SOMEBODY, WHETHER WE DO SOME WORK WITH THE REGIONAL COMMISSION AND BRING IN SOME CONTRACTED SERVICE THROUGH THAT.
WELL, UM, BUT TO BE HONEST, RIGHT, RIGHT NOW, I MEAN, DEPARTMENTS HAVE ACTUALLY BEEN ASKED TO GO BACK AND FIND WAYS TO FURTHER OR CUT THEIR BUDGETS.
UM, I REALLY BELIEVE THAT THIS IS A VERY IMPORTANT DOCUMENT.
YOU KNOW, I DON'T THINK THAT THIS IS FLUFF OR SOMETHING, YOU KNOW, BECAUSE IT'S, IT'S THE PREMIER POLICY DOCUMENT FOR YOUR LOCALITY.
IT'S THE DRIVER, IT'S THE BLUEPRINT FOR YOUR ZONING ORDINANCE AND A LOT OF OTHER POLICIES, UH, TO ME, IT'S NOT, IT IS A COST, BUT IT'S AN INVESTMENT AND IT'S AN INVESTMENT THAT'S 22 YEARS OVERDUE AND IT'S, AND IT SHOULD BE UNDERTAKEN.
UM, I DON'T KNOW, BEFORE WE LEAVE HERE THIS EVENING, IF, IF THE COMMISSION WOULD LIKE TO GO ON RECORD, UH, YOU KNOW, IF ALL POSSIBLE, YOU KNOW, FOR COUNCIL TO SEE, YOU KNOW, CAN THEY FIND WAYS TO TRY TO PROVIDE SOME FUNDING TO GET THIS STARTED? UM, ONE, ONE WAY I, ONE THING I'D LIKE TO TALK WITH THE MANAGER AND THE FINANCE DIRECTOR ABOUT IS, YOU KNOW, TRYING TO MAYBE DIVIDE THE COST OVER TWO PHYSICAL YEARS, UH, TO HELP SOFTEN THAT BLOW SO TO SPEAK AND THE AMOUNT, NOT THAT, YOU KNOW, THE TOTALITY OF IT BE PUT IN ONE BUDGET EACH YEAR, BUT, BUT TO TRY TO BREAK IT UP OVER, BECAUSE WE'RE GOING TO BE TALKING PROBABLY AT LEAST A 12 MONTH PROCESS FOR A REWRITE.
SO WE COULD TRY TO DIVIDE THAT COST TO SOFTEN THE IMPACT OVER A COUPLE OF YEARS, BUT IT, IT IS SOMETHING, UH, THAT IS NEEDED.
UH, THE PRIVATE COMPANY THAT I LOOKED AT, THEY, THEY CAME TO THE SAME CONCLUSIONS THAT BECAUSE OF THE AGE, A REWRITE WAS ABSOLUTELY AN ORDER.
AND THEY ALSO AGREED WITH WAITING ON THE, YOU KNOW, THE MOST CURRENT DATA AVAILABLE THAT'S TO BE ISSUED SHORTLY.
AND THAT'S JUST REPORT I HAVE FOR YOU.
I THINK WE ALL APPRECIATE THAT UPDATE, RIGHT? YES.
ANY OTHER COMMENTS BACK THEN? IT, IT SOUNDED LIKE MR. WILSON WAS MAYBE
[00:40:01]
ASKING IF WE'D BE WILLING TONIGHT TO STATE AS A COMMISSION, UM, THAT WE WOULD SUPPORT REWRITING THE COMP PLAN.IS, IS THAT SOMETHING WE WANT TO DISCUSS NOW, OR, OR MR. CHAIRMAN, WOULD YOU LIKE TO WAIT UNTIL THE WORK SESSION? I WAS JUST THINKING THAT WAS A GIVEN THAT WE WANTED TO HAVE THAT DONE, BUT, UH, I DON'T, I DON'T OBJECT TO HAVING A STATE THAT, UM, BUT I MEAN, THAT'S, YOU KNOW, WE, WE HADN'T BEEN WORKING ON IT ALREADY, SO I DON'T HAVE ANY FEELINGS EITHER WAY.
I WOULD, UH, LIKE TO DISCUSS THIS AT THE WORK SESSION, I THINK GIVE US A COUPLE OF WEEKS TO THINK ABOUT IT, YOU KNOW, CAUSE WE WERE BASICALLY GOING TO HAVE TO START OVER, UH, YOU KNOW, CAUSE WE'VE HAD PUBLIC MEETINGS, BUT THEY'RE KIND OF STALE, YOU KNOW, THEY'RE SEVEN OR EIGHT YEARS OLD NOW.
SO, AND ALL OF OUR COMMITTEES THAT WE HAVE SET UP ALL OF THE, UH, INVISION ONE AND DIVISION TWO, WHICH WERE PART OF THAT, UH, THAT, UH, UH, BUT AT THE WORK SESSION I WOULD REALLY LIKE TO FLESH OUT A CALENDAR.
UH, THE DIRECTOR HAS SAID, YOU KNOW, WE'RE LOOKING AT 12 TO 18 MONTHS, WHICH IS BASICALLY WHAT JEREMY HAD SAID WHEN WE STARTED THAT.
UM, WE JUST HAVE TO MAKE SURE THIS TIME THAT, THAT WE DON'T STOP THE PROCESS, THAT WE, UH, DEVELOP AN IRONCLAD AGENDA TO TAKE IT TO THE FINISH LINE.
AND THAT'S, THAT'S SOMETHING I THINK WE DISCUSSED AT THE WORK SESSION.
UM, THE NEXT ITEM IS THE TOWN COUNCIL ACTION AND THE TOWN COUNCIL DID TAKE ACTION PERTAINING TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION AND, UM, UH, THEY, THEY, THEY CHANGED ALMOST EVERYTHING IN IT, BUT THE TWO MAIN THINGS THAT WERE ALTERED WHERE, UM, WE ARE GOING FROM, UM, SEVEN TO FIVE COMMISSIONERS.
AND, UM, UH, THE OTHER ONE WAS THAT, UM, I FORGOT WHAT THAT ONE WAS.
UM, THE CHANGE ONLY HALF OF THE MEMBERS NEED TO BE, UH, REAL ESTATE OR PROPERTY OWNERS WITHIN THE TOWN.
RATHER THAN IT, INDIVIDUALLY V I SAID ONLY HALF OF IT, THE OTHER ITEMS THAT WERE TAKEN OUT WHERE, UH, WHERE I JUST WAS BECAUSE OF IT, A LOT OF THEM WERE SETTING UP INITIAL OPERATION.
THEY WERE BREAKING UP THE, UH, THE COMMISSIONERS TERMS AND EVERYTHING.
SO AS THEY WERE GETTING STARTED, SO WE DON'T NEED THAT ANYMORE.
SO THOSE ARE ALL TAKEN OUT OF THIS.
SO THOSE WERE THE, THOSE WERE THE MAIN CHANGES THAT I SAW.
AND I DON'T HAVE ANY PROBLEM WITH THAT.
THAT, THAT, THAT THAT'S CORRECT.
SOME OF IT WAS, AS YOU SAID, IT WAS OUTDATED FROM THE ORIGINAL AND SOME OF IT WAS LANGUAGE THAT YOU HAD, AND IT WAS SIMPLY REPLACED WITH LANGUAGE THAT COMES RIGHT FROM THE CODE OF VIRGINIA.
SO IT, YOU KNOW, IT MAKES IT VERY CONSISTENT.
UH, THE, THE TOWN CODE WAS WITH WATTS PROVIDED FOR THE CODE OF VIRGINIA, BUT, YOU KNOW, THE, AS YOU STATED CORRECTLY, THE, UH, THE MAIN INTENT, UM, OF THIS OTHER THAN SOME OF THE HOUSEKEEPING POINTS WAS TO, UH, CHANGE THE MEMBERSHIP OF THE COMMISSION FROM A SEVEN MEMBER TO A FIVE MEMBER BODY.
AND THERE IS, UH, WITH, UH, THE VACANCY NOW THAT WAS CREATED BY MR. MCFADDEN RESIGNING, AS HE IS, UH, TAKEN ON A COUNCIL POSITION.
UH, THE, THE COUNCIL IS AWARE OF THAT AND THEY UNDERSTAND THAT THEY DO HAVE THAT VACANCY TO FILL.
MR. CHAIRMAN, UH, QUESTION FOR MR. WILSON, IS IT TYPICAL THAT, UH, PLANNING COMMISSIONS ARE MADE UP NOT ONLY OF REAL PROPERTY OWNERS OF THE LOCALITY? IF I REMEMBER CORRECTLY THAT THAT'S A PROVISION OUT OF THE CODE OF VIRGINIA.
CAUSE WE WENT FROM EVERY MEMBER WAS A FREE HOLDER TO, UH, ONE HALF OF THE MEMBERS SHALL REAL PROPERTY OWNERS.
AND LIKE I SAID, UH, UH, MUCH OF THE LANGUAGE, WHAT YOU SEE HERE MADE IT CONSISTENT WITH, WITH, WITH THE CODE OF VIRGINIA.
UM, WE HAD CONVERSATION SOME TIME AGO ABOUT ABSENCES
[00:45:01]
NUMBER OF ABSENCES ALLOWED, WHICH CAN BE EXCUSED, WHICH WOULD NOT BE EXCUSED, WHATEVER CAME OF THAT CONVERSATION.WELL, THAT'S INCLUDED IN THE, UH, IN THE, IN THEIR REWRITE, UH, THEIR, THEIR LISTENING, UH, REQUIREMENTS, UH, FOR, UM, ABSENCES UNDER SECTION 28.4, THAT, THAT IS STRAIGHT FROM THE CODE OF VIRGINIA, WHERE IT TALKS ABOUT MEMBERS, HOW THEY MAY BE REMOVED FOR MALFEASANCE OF OFFICE IS NOT ATTENDED IN OUR CONVERSATION ABOUT A CERTAIN NUMBER OF ILLNESS, ILLNESS, ABSENCES ALLOWED.
UH, UH, I THINK WE HAD AGREED TO ALLOW A CERTAIN NUMBER OF ABSENCES FOR ILLNESS AND THEN, UH, ONE EXCUSED ABSENCE.
SO ALL THAT, I THINK THE DISTINCTION THERE IS THAT IS IN OUR BYLAWS, UM, WHERE WE DEFINE, IF YOU COULD, UH, JOIN A MEETING REMOTELY.
SO THAT'S IN THE BYLAWS WITH THAT.
[IX. Commission Member Reports]
ARE DOWN TO, UM, COMMISSIONED MEMBER REPORTS.NO, UH, MR. CHAIRMAN, I, I BELIEVE THAT WE NEED TO ELECT A NEW VICE CHAIR, UH, WITH MR. MCFADDEN'S VACANCY.
I WOULD LIKE TO, UH, MOVE THAT, UH, MR. MERCHANT IS OUR VICE CHAIR.
UH, WELL, LET ME JUST, UM, UH, FEBRUARY IS OUR TIME TO ELECT OFFICERS.
SO IT SEEMS LIKE SINCE IT'S BASICALLY THE NEXT MEETING, WE WILL BE ELECTING A CHAIRMAN AND VICE CHAIRMAN.
SO I THINK IT'D PROBABLY BE BEST TO JUST HOLD ON THAT UNTIL THEN UNTIL THE FEBRUARY MEETING.
OH, OTHER REPORTS OR QUESTIONS AND WE HAVE A MOTION TO ADJOURN.
SECOND, BEEN MOVED IN A SECOND AGAIN.
LET'S DO A SHOW OF HANDS IN FAVOR OF THE JOURNEY UNANIMOUS.